John Carmack: "A part used in a console has twice the efficiency of the same part used in a PC, as the PS4 is coded to the metal. Therefore, you need a 3.68 teraflop GPU to equal the optimized 1.84 teraflop GPU in PS4."

Not true at all because gigaflops is not all that matters in a graphics card. a 3.64 teraflop PC card would be a Titan and GTX 780. These cards out class the PS4 in every way possible.

Also the 780 can run Battlefield 4 maxed at 1080p at over 60FPS. The PS4 version has to run on medium at 720p to get 60fps which the 780 would run easily at 120-150fps at the same quality as the PS4. Flops are not all that matters in a graphics card. In terms of ROPs and TMUs the PS4 and Xbox One are out gunned by even a mid end graphics card.

Also their CPUs are very bad low end laptop ones which doesn't help either.

If you want a PC that will greatly outperform a next Gen console you can get it for $700-$800. Look in an AMD FX 6300 and a Radeon 7950 or Nvidia GTX 760. If your an Intel Fan you can pull it off with an i5 for $800-$850.

@SnotyTheRocket

Yes you can for $500 you can get this. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1... That build is really old it was for a friend who wanted a PC instead of a next gen console for $500 after rebates and some combo deals + promos he got a similar build for $450 (Still had an fx 6300 but he got a HD 7870 instead and found better deals).

That outperforms a PS4 in raw power. Gaming computers are not expensive they do not cost thousands of dollars to max games. $800 will get you a PC that can max nearly everything imagineable.

Very important but people should know this from experience. Did no one remember when the PS3 and Xbox 360 were first released they competed easily with some of the highest end PC's you could afford.

Which was sad because the could game just as well as thousand dollar PC's at the time.

I remember feeling stupid when I first got a PS3 and 360 knowing how little ram they had and the GPU's they were using, with all the money I had spent on a PC that could barely keep up and cost way more money, had way higher specifications all of that but it wasn't enough.

PC's aren't technically built for gaming they are built for multiple tasks, consoles are built solely for gaming for the most part unlike a PC. It makes a huge difference.

I mean seeing games like The Last of Us being played on a measly 256MB of RAM and 256MB VRAM is incredible, I don't care how much of PC enthusiast you are, that is something.

You could never play The Last of Us on a PC with the same specs with a GPU with 256MB VRAM and 256MB of RAM. It would just ignite in flames probably.

@WarThunder is right. PC do not come close to console when we are speaking of use efficiency. A console with time will use up to 80% to 90% of its processing power. Computers in the order hand cannot achieve to use 50% of their computing power. Blame it to directX if you want. Worse, giving time and because of constantly growth of the software system of the computer, this efficiency drops even more. That is why, even if your computer seem to be more powerful than the PS4 or Xbone, it won't be able to run PS4 and Xbone's games at the same standard like those two consoles.

The PC maybe the best powerful tool to play video-games, but it's thanks to their the massive money you constantly put inside to either upgrade hardware or to buy overpowered parts, not the programing prowess.

It is different this time. This is the first time ever in history that the new consoles in terms of raw power are worse than a normal gaming PC. When the PS3 and xbox 360 came out they were mid end graphics cards with very good cpus that were better than almost every desktop one.

This time it is a low end CPU with a lower mid end graphics card. The consoles are not better than a mid end computer, they are equal to low end gaming PCs.

cheapest GTX 780 on newegg is $650 http://www.newegg.com/Produ... This is just the card alone. You still need a board, RAM, SSD, and CPU. PC gamers love to "claim" superiority based off pure speculation.

Why do people talk as if PS4 and Xbone are different from PC's? They are just low-mid end PC's. The only difference is that game developers, especially 1st party, are extremely talented and are able to optimize games far better. I guarantee nearly every single time you compare multiplatform game on PC to the consoles, PC will win every time.

Optimization is the only difference, high end PC's will always have more power, I didn't even know this was a debate, rather common knowledge. Who cares anyways?

@WarThunder John Carmack was talking about your average PC port. Look at NVidia and AMD's specific drivers for different games. The difference in efficiency is no where near twice as much. If that was the case, why can BattleField 4 running on a GTX 680 outperform the PS4 version?

Carmack can be wrong, sorry...there's no such rule as....consoles guts are 2x as good as the same thing in a PC. That's laughable. Amazing people believe such a broad and unscientific statement is a fact rather than a general guess.

Moore's law isn't a law either. It's a guideline they shoot for.

People shouldn't use GTX780 as an example, my GTX 670 can max out BF3 and be between 55-60 FPS (with vsync on). I've seen that card as low as $309, and I haven't been looking very often. A 660ti, even cheaper, can basically do it as well.

What people forget about the PC's is you can upgrade the gpu.

Right now, there are a ton of PC gamers, who bought an i5/i7 PC where all they have to do is upgrade their GPU. Any i7, and I mean ANY i7 since the line came out in 2008 is still a more powerful CPU then in the PS4/Xbox One. At stock speeds let alone an overclock.

So no, you don't need to buy expensive parts, you don't need to upgrade often, but can CHOOSE to if you want to...and many PC gamers only need to buy a graphics card....they don't need to upgrade their whole rig.

Many PC gamers only need to spend about $300 and they'll have something far better than a PS4. That $ figure could be even lower in a few months.

Hey I like the PS4, I've got one pre-ordered and it will be delivered on launch day. Even though I could play BF4 on ultra settings like BF3, I'm going to most likely buy it on PS4.

Comparing PC's of 2005-06 to 360/PS3 and thinking we're in the same situation now is amazingly wrong.

If you wanted consoles to be on par with how they launched in 2005-06 you'd need that console to have a GTX 780 in it. That they don't is showing the FACT that the consoles are starting with tech that is a couple years behind high end PC's, and more if you consider the Uber SLI Pc's. Not only that but you'd need something far more powerful then the mobile CPU they got in them. PC's were still using single core CPU's and the dual cores were barely coming out.

So say the 360 and PS3 launched in 2007-2008 with the same specs they did, and THEN compare them to top end 2007-2008 PC's and that's a proper STARTING point comparison.

Growth of software slows down PC's? Wow. People do realize that if say a particular program is updated and uses more resources like pretty much all programs do, then you close the program before you start playing a game. Ctrl+Alt+delete style. People are also acting like the OS of the consoles, won't somehow get bloated over the years.

Super optimized doesn't give you that much difference. TLOU is not a good looking game. Sorry. Graphically it looks like any other under rezzed 360/PS3 game. The art direction is good. Some people conflate the two.

Just like now how some people say GTA V graphics are good on consoles. No, they are not. I'm sure the art direction and attention to detail is amazing. True these things can help blur the line a bit, but overall TLOU running at 1080p or higher with DX11 style features would be a good looking game.

That's why many WANT a TLOU PS4 edition. Because it can be done so much better and actually be a good looking game.

C'mon guys. The PS4 will be a good system, I'm buying one. I'm even choosing to play some games on the PS4 that I could play at higher settings on my PC. But what you guys are putting out there about PS4 vs PC is simply not true.

My current PC already competes with PS4 hardware, so I'm not interested in a Steam Box to play the Steam I already play on my PC. Steam Box isn't a very clever idea, imo. A Steam Box is a PC is a PC is a PC.

The consoles of this next gen basically are PCs, taking advantage of the console's GPUs translates to taking advantage of AMD's mid ranged 7 series. I wouldn't be surprised if the PC specs ends up translating to that on their boxes.

the only way Specs in the PC world could be bogus is if the technology couldn't be replicated, in which in this case it actually can.

@zele.... I don't think so bro. Calling the ps4 a low end pc is ridiculous because I have a low end gaming pc and Mass effect 2 looks and runs like shit compared to the ps3 version so I can't imagine what the ps4 will do to mid end gaming pc's lol!

pc fanboys cannot accept the fact that console games can look and play equally as great without tweaking, upgrades and enhancements that the pc requires all the time. That's what I think they hate on, the fact that they have to spend and work hard for their games while console gamers just pop in a disc and enjoy;-)

In your wall-o-text you seem to have pretty good arguments, and then you claim "TLOU is not a good looking game", and then I doubt everything you say. You are either blind, biased, or spoiled. Its a great looking game by any standard.

AMD uses x86 architecture for the latest consoles which means games will be made on the PC as the lead platform and scaled down for the xdone and ps4. Console advocates seem to forget this. Saying that the console has 2x the processing power of the PC for the same specs is so 2006.

And PLEASE stop using TLoU as an example of console graphical excellence. I own the game, I've spent over 20 hrs playing it, and the graphics are disgusting for a 2013 game. Artistically it's beautiful but technically it's atrocious. The aliasing was so distracting and the low res textures constantly reminded me just how old the ps3 is. Don't even get me started on the awful frame-rate. TLoU should be praised for its story telling and intense gameplay, NOT its graphics.

By the time 2014 comes to a close and the first round of PS4/xdone games are out hopefully you kids will begin to realize the true power of the PC. And you don't have to spend a lot of money to build a rig that destroys any console.

I don't know about Sony or Nintendo but Microsoft spend billions creating the X1. About 1 billion on Kinect 2. Valve can't dream about spending that much cash.

if its going to be anything like a traditional console(not like ouya). It's power would be Xbox 360 level.

@OrangePowerz

You don't get the point. If they spend 1 billion dollar on just Kinect.What do you think the console itself would cost? A shit load more, I can tell you that. The new consoles are already small PC's. So I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

Why? Valve doesn`t need to spend money on crap like Kinect and they can afford to make a small PC that can match the X1 for an affordable price. They don`t need to build a console, just something that has the size of a console and use standard PC hardware with most likely Linux as their OS given Gabes comments about how Linux is the future for computer games.

A large chunk of that money is spent on R&D. Valve knows PC hardware pretty well by now, and will most likely have several options available. Also, if you really believe that MS spent one billion on Kinect, then you also probably believe that they spent the same amount on their new controller. What this means is either you're incredibly gullible, or MS has horrible engineers. Either way, Valve can put together a machine with some serious power that would compete with consoles. Especially if they're not as worried about power draw as MS and Sony.

Spending money isn't an indicator of how good a console is, nor is it an indicator of what needs to be spent.

Microsoft has been pouring money down a hole. Their shareholders should be livid they spent what they did. You don't need to spend all those billions creating a console.

You do realize that Microsoft, other than the Kinect chip, isn't creating the guts of the system.

The R&D needed to make the Xbox One was really spent by AMD/ATI. That's who makes the chips and developed the tech of the chips.

That's the dirty little secret. It doesn't take billions to launch a console. Only microsoft is dumb enough to spend billions on a console and isn't making the guts thus the those billions aren't making the console any more powerful.

What they've spent on Kinect is unjustifiable. People are asking what's the justification of Kinect2 being with the Xbox One. Most don't see a reason for it at all. But imagine if you had to somehow justify why you've spent billions on it to your bosses. Heads rolled and probably more will.

Valve can very easily, and relatively speaking very cheaply create a console that is more powerful then the Xbox One and even the PS4.

What's even funnier is they can create THREE consoles (or three small form factor PC's), all at different power levels, for more likely a bunch less then Microsoft spent just on Kinect. From the rumors I last saw the one more powerful then a PS4 was also significantly more expensive.

Any moron can waste money. That is EXACTLY what Microsoft has been doing... being unbelievably wasteful with their cash.

Microsoft has literally written the book this generation on how NOT to launch a new console. The part people haven't focused on yet is how much overall they spent to develop such an underwhelming console.

People need to look at all these expenditures and ask...what did all these millions and billions add to the system? The depressing answer is...not much...if anything. In some cases the focus actually created a situation which lowered the power of the system.

So they spent billions on Kinect, spent more to package it in with the system, yet because of that had to not only skimp on other parts, but in order to neutralize some of the skimping they added ESRAM which will make some ports horrible simply because of it.

The sad truth is Microsoft spent billions in essence sabotaging their machine. They don't see it as that. But if you spend money to weaken your console, you did, exactly that....and they did. What a waste.

It can be 500$ and 100$ more powerful than PS4...If PS4 had 100$ more worth of parts it woul be more powerful.I'm talking about specs not things like kinect so please no one be a dumbass and make that comparison to counter what i said.

"Sure, it’ll be a bummer for the few nostalgic gamers who enjoy lining up their games on a shelf and flipping through each title while deciding what to play next. However, for the most part, this is no do"

I hope to god that it will still let you insert physical discs. I don't see why Valve won't let people do that.

This article makes it out like it's a PC console with small console elements but I'd rather see a full on console with PC elements instead.

Even if it is more powerful since the PS4 lets me use physical discs, I'd choose that over the Steambox any day

@MAjor thinking that the ps4 and xb1 are "low-mid pcs" makes you sound ignorant. Both are highly customized chips derived from off the shelf components. Im not claiming the next gen systems will outperform a high end pc but PC with specs along the lines of the next gen consoles ,instead of the super power monster pc's that are often used for multiplatform comparisons, will always fall behind.

Besides Steam is pretty wealthy. Remember they are a digital distributor and game developer.

Basically their business model is about as profitable as it gets. They buy game keys for X and sell them for X+Y. They don't have to hold any of those games in a store room, nor pay for packaging/shipping. (except their ports to consoles)

That's why you can get games that are still selling for $50-60 on consoles, for $20 bucks MONTHS ago during a sale. People do realize that they'll be able to buy AC:IV on Steam during the winter sale for about $29-33 around Xmas right? Plus pretty much any other PC game that may still yet to be launched.

I do see their console as a big gamble, because it's really the only physical product they have and all the associated costs that go with it.

I'm not saying they'll succeed. But I can tell you with ease they can develop a console for cheaper costs to them then MS spent, and it be more powerful then the other consoles. That part is easy, if they want to. The hard part is pricing and selling them, and any guess on that is as good as anyone's.

Weren't you one of the people that thought the Xbox One had 3 GPUs. lol You're laughable and have no credibility, that's why you only have 2 bubbles for following MisterX's misinformation.

On topic, if the Steam Box turns out to be impressive then I'm definitely getting one as my second console next to the PS4. I owned every home console for this gen and the last but next gen I'm only getting two so I can use the extra couple hundreds to get a few more games or use it for my subscriptions. Probably have PS4 for physical discs and the Steam Box for those great deals they always do. Steam never disappoints when it comes to that.

This thing WILL out power those two consoles. The PS4 and Xbox One already have a low end CPU and a low -mid range GPU, I'm certain Valve would ship this thing with beefier parts. Especially since they'd likely show off their next generation engine.

PS4 has a mid-range GPU (HD7870) not a low midrange. John Carmack: "A part used in a console has twice the efficiency of the same part used in a PC, as the PS4 is coded to the metal. Therefore, you need a 3.68 teraflop GPU to equal the optimized 1.84 teraflop GPU in PS4."

Xb1 has a low-range GPU (HD7790).

And plus it also depends on the architectural of each platform and the development. It will be hard to beat a 8 cores, HD7870 GPU with a 8GB GDDR for a 399 price. But it will be cool to see another platform on the market.

There's one flaw in you're point. You seemingly ruled out the possibility of the Steam Box being modular, making it upgradable. So even then, it will still out power the consoles. However, we still don't know the final specs of the steam box, so it's anyone's guess as to how powerful the system will be.

I'm making my hypothesis based on a few factors.

1. They confirmed that they will have three announcements.

2. One of those announcements could be their next generation engine Source 2, it's been hinted at multiple times in the past months.

3. They will likely announce a new game that uses Source 2 that runs on the Stem box. Now whether they want to show the true graphical fidelity of the engine, or the ease of optimization, or both depends on them, but I think it'll be to show off graphical fidelity. So why wouldn't they have the Steam Box more powerful than the PS4?

@Trago1337: I think left for dead 3 will be the source 2 game you refer to. Thing is will it be exclusive to their platform or not? I see the steam box less as a games console more as a Linux based gaming pc series. Abit like Alienware is a gaming PC make that runs windows OS. However as most of steams library currently isn't available in linuz, and what is mostly requires you to repurchase it if you own windows version..... Also if it's upgradeable in terms of gpu, cpu etc then it deffo isn't a console. whole point of a console is everyone has the same rendering.processing power available to them for devs to use. Also whatever Steam release they can't afford to subsidise the cost the way Sony and MS often do. So if they have the specs io a $800 PC. It's not going to cost any less than $800.

Valve can not afford to create a console to Match PS4 or X1. First off, they don't know if this thing is going to be successful, exhibit A, Ouya. General consumers AKA "not-PC gamers" don't know who Valve is or even Steam for that matter.

Second, The costs. Making a console costs a shit load of money. Let alone making one that can Match X1 or PS4. These things cost billions. Billions that valve doesn't have.

Lets say they actually do have the money. They have ZERO guarentee that this thing is going to take off. They wouldn't have money for marketing and such. Nothing. Because again, Nobody knows who Valve and Steam is.

Bottomline: If they're really working on a console. It will be nowhere near X1 or PS4. Not even close to the Wii U.

Well seeing as upgradeable parts will probably be true then it will be the consumers choice to make it more powerful, if that isn't the case then it probably will be the most powerful. It would be cool to get a console that gives you options though. Plus Valve would probably offer exclusive content that would come close to sony and Nintendo.

Halflife,Left4Dead,Dota,Count erstrike,Portal,Team fortress,plus i'm sure they would expand first party if they did enter the console bussiness,but i don't think it will be a console they release .

Might aswell buy a PC then hadn't you as it's going to be running on linux... which cuts out any benefit of steams library as most of it isn't supported and what is generally requires purchasing separately for linux than from windows.

The problem with making an upgradable console is that it completely eliminates the main benefit if home consoles; ease of access. If a console was upgradable, you would loose the security of knowing your games will always run and be fully optimised. Because of this the steam box will only attract the pc crowd.